Damn, sad to see. I hate all the little random bits of plastic junk that come along with our industry. I’d go mad having to tag my turds before I flushed ‘em,
Iirc WA tried Biotrack. It sucked more. Metrc allows you to do things you shouldn’t do. Biotrack constrained you to the point where it was often impossible to document allowable activities. It was also a big ball of mud, having clearly been repurposed. I was so pissed off I threw opensource tools at it to get at the underlying schema, and found things like a fully populated ZIP code table in there. Got into some very heated calls with their ceo at one point.
At least one of them was because they were treating the thing like excel and not a relational database. Storing the same value thousands of times as if their programmers didn’t understand normalization. Wasn’t clear their CEO understood that term….it was also programmed in Visual Basic, which had already been deemed “legacy” by Microsoft at that point. CEO claimed to be a self taught programmer. which I’m guessing meant “nobody else could understand his code”…I may have told him that.
3 Likes
less than 24hrs before they go live, we still don’t have the “Processing Jobs Scenarios” that these two link theoretically point at…
IE: they are about to change things, and both the notifications they are giving, point essentially nowhere (page last updated 12-2020).
(this is where the URL pointed at 8am this morning)
WOW… now they DO point at NOTHING!!
https://wiki-or.metrc.com/training/metrc-xp-scenarios
which means the person I emailed saying that the above link pointed at a page that had not been updated since 12-2020 responded by deleting the page?!?
seriously?!?
It’s the third or fourth time they’ve shuffled the links around and not actually pointed anywhere useful (because they have not built the thing they are trying to show us!!!).
Edit: last email said that those scenarios won’t be created before the new features go live, and that OLCC never claimed they would be, and have no obligation to do so.
So why the links?!?
NOTE
One neat thing our guru noticed while playing in the sandbox is we now DO have accumulators.
They’re not tags.
They’re the PROCESS JOB of “Sock run” or “Solvent washing Pans/jars” which are both “extraction”.
You can keep adding tags (dribs and drabs left over that would otherwise be “wasted”) to a job until you pull the first package. So I can solvent wash dishes for a week or two, recover the solvent for reuse, and actually document where the hell that kg of winterized extract came from. without burning tags at every addition. Or at all until I pull the extract!
Now the only thing holding us back from “dish-tillate” is the sharpie on the containers.
Ain’t making no “pen” carts…
4 Likes
If anyone in Oregon is having trouble accessing the new jobs “feature” that went live today, one has to update the permissions in the admin-employees tab before they can be viewed by anyone, edited, or accessed without the system crashing. Took me a minute to figure that out after @cyclopath reported non-functionality. Staying compliant is going to be a lot more complicated as of today, so we will try and keep everyone updated as we encounter more problems and solutions.
2 Likes
For anyone else out there wondering about the attribute
“Outputs are intended for oral consumption or intended to be used as
an ingredient in a product intended for oral consumption.”
a. Includes edibles and tinctures, as well as extracts and
concentrates that are intended to be consumed orally (e.g.
"RSO”). Also includes extracts, concentrates, and products that
MAY be used as an ingredient in an edible or tincture.
the rule upon which that rests actually states
(D) Outputs that are intended for oral consumption or intended to be used as an ingredient in a product intended for oral consumption.
so despite what your english teacher may have told you about the meaning of “may” or “might”, you are not required to label everything you make with
“might end up being swallowed by a customer”.
it only apples if it was your intent to stick it in their face.
Caveat: I asked OLCC for clarification on this days ago. I have NOT gotten a response. If I do, I’ll come back and update.
OLCC is responding to emails today (Sat). They agree that they got it wrong (but only in their instructions, not IN metric). they intended “intend”, not “may”.
3 Likes
Turns OLCC only wants to know so much about your process…
There is an undocumented 1000 character limit on the required “processing steps” description.
At this point I’m tempted to simply give them
It puts the cannabis in the tube, and then it walks away again … See Luna SOP
Either they want to know how we do things, or they don’t…based on how long it took to give us anywhere to describe our processes, I’m leaning towards the latter.
3 Likes
Bahahaha character limits. No file upload options?
No file uploads.
Downloads omit the “attributes” (Eg: “intended for customers pie hole”)
1 Like
ChatGpt: waste 1000 characters of space typing an introduction to our process knowing it has a 1000 character limit and they’ll never see anything.
I prefer: Write me an SOP for extraction in the Luna, and include a summary of less than 1000 characters for the regulators.
Not trying to obsfucate.
Happy to leave the gory details in a 3-ring binder they’ll never look at, but I’d like them to get the gist of the operation.
1 Like
Dear [Supervisor/Regulatory Authority],
I am writing to provide a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for cannabis extraction using Luna’s automated Extraction System at our OLCC Processing facility. Our goal is to produce high-quality cannabis extracts with maximum efficiency and safety while complying with all OLCC regulations.
Our SOP includes the following steps:
Preparing the input material: We ensure that the cannabis flowers or trim are clean, dry, and free of contaminants before loading them into the Extraction System.
Loading the Extraction System: We load the input material into the extraction vessel, ensuring that it is evenly distributed and that the vessel is not overfilled.
Adding the extraction solvent: We add the appropriate amount of solvent (usually ethanol or hydrocarbon) to the extraction vessel using the automated dosing system.
Extracting: We initiate the extraction process using the automated Extraction System, which controls temperature, pressure, and other parameters to optimize extraction efficiency and quality.
Collecting the extract: We collect the extracted solution in a collection vessel, where it is further processed and purified.
Reclaiming the solvent: We reclaim the solvent using Luna’s automated solvent recovery system, ensuring that it is safely and efficiently recycled for future use.
Post-processing: We post-process the extract according to our specific requirements, such as winterization, distillation, or chromatography, to produce the desired end product.
We adhere to all OLCC regulations throughout the extraction process, including proper record-keeping, employee training, and safety measures.
By following this SOP and using Luna’s automated Extraction System, we can produce high-quality cannabis extracts efficiently and safely while complying with all OLCC regulations.
Thank you for your attention and support in ensuring compliance and safety in our cannabis extraction operations.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Summary for regulators:
This Standard Operating Procedure outlines the steps for cannabis extraction using Luna’s automated Extraction System at our OLCC Processing facility. We prepare the input material, load it into the Extraction System, add the extraction solvent, extract, collect the extract, reclaim the solvent, and post-process the extract. We adhere to all OLCC regulations and use Luna’s system to ensure efficient and safe extraction while producing high-quality extracts
@cyclopath howd I do?
Here’s what I fed it: “Write me an SOP for extraction in the Luna, and include a summary of less than 1000 characters for the regulators. We are an OLCC Processing facility. This is a Standard Operating Procedure for Cannabis Extraction using Lunas automated Extraction system. https://www.lunatechequipment.com/ for reference”
1 Like
I’d like a smidge more emphasis on “it’s automagic”…
But yeah, something along those lines. I figured I’d feed it my current “summaries” and go from there.
1 Like
The better detail you give it the better it’s output usually. Have fun with that.
Yeah they just want you to reference your internal SOP - not your actual process steps. 
You know, keep that IP close. Is it secret? Is it safe?
2 Likes
I’d rather they actually learned something…
I get that’s just my faulty wiring.
Eg: Decarb.
NOTES: Decarboxylation is the process of turning THCa into THC. We decarboxylate both BHO, and THCa isolate. Both are expected to lose mass due to the CO2 evolved. THCA isolate should loose ~12%, BHO should loose about 9-10% of starting mass as CO2. See: Decarboxylation SOP 1.0 and Waste Documentation SOP 1.0.
2 Likes
Things are of course NOT working as they should, my current favorite is that one has to “select” packages to get them into a job.
Typing the last 4, or scanning a barcode DON’T work…
That’s the same UID, first one is typed, second scanned, third “selected” after using the search function. It simply does not acknowledge the first two!!
Which says to me the subroutine to perform the (normal) lookup had not been added to the code generating this dialog. Or it’s pointing somewhere else (field name is wrong). That should not have made it to the sandbox, let alone out of it.
There are a couple of other doozies we’ve run across, and a bunch of stupid little things that make data entry harder than it should be.
Go to ADD three packages to a job that already has 14 packages in it. It was deliberate. I was curious.
Dialog pops up with weights, but no tag numbers!! Insists I add them. Won’t let me scan them. Fuck that noise I’m not searching for each of those again. I’ll just discontinue the job, and select them from the grid by eye again.
Might as well fuck around and see what’s up with these UID-less lines.
it’s not showing package numbers, what happens if I remove those lines?
Lets me remove 13 of them. Total weight of job doesn’t change. ( however, weights return to parent packages). Add my three packages, remove the one I could not remove (to leave zero), and hit “adjust”.
Now job as total weight of the three added packages. Not unreasonable, in fact expected, but because I have adjusted it, I can no longer discontinue it.
Understand, there are only three excuses you can adjust a job with:
- decided to add more weed.
- Did not extract all the weed.
- I entered amount of weed incorrectly.
So if I discontinue the job, why can’t I have my weed back?
If I pull “product” (package anything), then clearly I can’t have ALL my weed back, but why can’t I discontinue?
Let’s say I got 100kg of weed set up to extract, find another 20kg, added it to the job, only to discover that we have no butane. So this is all going into ethanol?
I can pull the biomass out of the job in a package (or six) and send that to an EtOH-job, but there is no valid reason that I shouldn’t just be able to discontinue the job.
Really seems like this update was taken live without adequate testing, again…
Based on when the sandbox went live, I would tend to blame METRC for not getting the job finished on time, and OLCC for deciding to run with it anyway.
Not surprised. Just disappointed…and venting here so I’m less likely to try and rip someones head off over the phone in the morning
3 Likes
how has that pappy van winkle scandal effected the cannabis side of things?
1 Like
Selling knock-offs?
Like sprayed flower?
Or d8 as HHC?
Nah…
We’ll see how it all plays out eventually. 
2 Likes
Processing jobs in metric went live last friday 2/9/24 in Nevada. Im not to happy about all the extra computer work. Another problem with it is when you go from crude to distillate it requires you to tag the crude before it goes into the “distill” job. now that the crude has a Tag it must be tested before it can be distilled… now they turned an already slow process into a even slower process that requires extra tags and extra labs…smh